(May 8, 2012 at 9:46 pm)DeeTee Wrote: ... humble oneself to God recognizing that he rules not unbelief
No, he rules unbelief, too. Or did you need a comma in there? :D
(May 9, 2012 at 8:48 am)Epimethean Wrote: Coming into this a tad late. Chad, Ryft, aside from trying to point out a flaw in Pad's premises, what is it you would like to point out? Is there an overarching idea at stake, which we might all discuss?
I was not pointing out flaws in Pad's premises, whatever they are. All I was pointing out was how one particular sentence of his was pulling the trigger on itself. Some people value the opportunities that criticism affords them to express their view in the future with more logical integrity.
(May 9, 2012 at 10:13 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I believe ... the primary weakness of materialism [is] its inability to account for the emergence of subjective experience out of nonconscious matter.
That is a problem, to be sure, but I submit that the primary problem for metaphysical naturalism is its inability to account for itself.
(1) If metaphysical naturalism is true, then all beliefs are fully explainable in terms of non-rational causes.
(2) If all beliefs are fully explainable in terms of non-rational causes, then they are not rationally inferred.
(3) Therefore, if metaphysical naturalism is true, then no belief is rationally inferred.
(4) Metaphysical naturalism is true.
(5) Therefore, no belief is rationally inferred (including metaphysical naturalism).
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
